WSP03035 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. . Line 41: Replace, "have changed" with "were modified to accommodated endangered fish research and recovery efforts in the San Juan River." . Line 241-246: We continue to believe that DecommissioninglBreaching should not be considered in this ADEIS at all as it is not a dam operating alternative. It would seem n,rwp ~nnrf'\nri!.ltp fn ~rl.lrpl;:C th;c ("'1"'.:17\1 irlp<;l <;Ie np{"'Pt'C<.:lr\l in thp rpcnnncp tn. ;nrli\lir1Il~1 ...~.- -t't'.~t"'-~- ~~ ~--'-""- ......... -'-~J "--- -.-. .._-_...OJ......J u. ....... .._-t-'..........._.~ ...--. --..-- comments. However, if it must stay we suggest a stronger position such as the following, "Decommissioning is outside the scope of the proposed action, fails to meet all elements of the "Purpose and Need" for the proposed action, and would preclude meeting commitments required under existing law. While breaching may provide flows closer to those of a natural hydrograph, it will not provide a true natural hydro graph given all the other regulating structures in the basin nor help meet the flow recommendations. As a result, it would do little to improve conditions for endangered fish. The presence of non-native fish further complicates the situation." . Line 279: Replace "would" with "could". The Utes could proceed without ALP, or seek a separate consultation on the smaller ALP that develops an RP A that does not require mimicry of the natural hydrograph. . Line 307: After "Farnlington" add "and allow water development to continue." This keeps the goals of the San Juan RIP in tact. . Line 308: The flexibility language goes here. . Line 399-400: Last two columns are confusing. Do you mean to use 6,000 in place of the second 5,000 cfs value? Chapter 1 . The purpose and need here and in the summary nccd to be identical. . Line 83: Revise, "introduction of non-native sport fish and removal of native fish to create a more desirable recreational fishery, diversion structure, ..." . Line 86: Replace, "have changed" with "were modified to accommodated endangered fish research and recovery efforts in the San Juan River due to ESA consultations." . Line 113 & 156 &158: Delete, "Biology Committee." Reference should be to the SJRBRIP as a whole. . Line 162: Please add a sentence that states that the flow recommendations are subject to periodic review and modification through the SJRBRIP based on new information obtained by the program. . Lines 164-169: please be cautious of changes to this language. It should reflect what was actually done. Various interests will have changes to offer that place their interests in a more favorable light. . Lines 192-196: The issues here do not track well with the Summary at lines 91-102. In particular, there is no mention of Decommissioning Navajo Dam. Which list is correct? This seems to argue for removal of the decommissioning alternative. . Lines 270-285: Table I-I is misleading. The federally authorized purposes are described in Section I of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (P.L. 84- 485). The authorizations described therein are primary and should be the ones listed in Table I-I. Consistent with those authorizations, other federal law is applied, those should be in the separate section that follows. Recreation, Water Quality and Tribal Water Rights should be moved to the lists that follow Table 1- I. Federally authorized Page 30[6 001339